[gentoo-dev] [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

[gentoo-dev] [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

[Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 341 bytes --]

I would like to suggest new policy stating that packages should respect LDFLAGS.
Small amount of packages which ignore LDFLAGS should be patched to respect them.
Such patches are usually small and easy to write.

This policy is required to allow QA team to fix packages which ignore LDFLAGS.

-- 
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

[Gilles Dartiguelongue]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 629 bytes --]

Le jeudi 24 juillet 2008 à 18:36 +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar
Arahesis a écrit :
> I would like to suggest new policy stating that packages should respect LDFLAGS.
> Small amount of packages which ignore LDFLAGS should be patched to respect them.
> Such patches are usually small and easy to write.
> 
> This policy is required to allow QA team to fix packages which ignore LDFLAGS.
> 

this question might sound stupid, but what are you actually trying to
fix ? What do these packages do or do not do by ignoring your ldflags
that is so crucial to you ?

-- 
Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@gentoo.org>
Gentoo

[-- Attachment #2: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

[Nikos Chantziaras]

Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> Le jeudi 24 juillet 2008 à 18:36 +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar
> Arahesis a écrit :
>> I would like to suggest new policy stating that packages should respect LDFLAGS.
>> Small amount of packages which ignore LDFLAGS should be patched to respect them.
>> Such patches are usually small and easy to write.
>>
>> This policy is required to allow QA team to fix packages which ignore LDFLAGS.
>>
> 
> this question might sound stupid, but what are you actually trying to
> fix ? What do these packages do or do not do by ignoring your ldflags
> that is so crucial to you ?

"-Wl,-O1,--hash-style=gnu,--sort-common,--as-needed"

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

[Duncan]

Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@arcor.de> posted g6dp32$1sl$1@ger.gmane.org,
excerpted below, on  Sat, 26 Jul 2008 02:54:07 +0300:

> Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
>> Le jeudi 24 juillet 2008 à 18:36 +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar
>> Arahesis a écrit :
>>> I would like to suggest new policy stating that packages should
>>> respect LDFLAGS.

>>> This policy is required to allow QA team to fix packages which ignore
>>> LDFLAGS.
>>>
>> this question might sound stupid, but what are you actually trying to
>> fix ? What do these packages do or do not do by ignoring your ldflags
>> that is so crucial to you ?
> 
> "-Wl,-O1,--hash-style=gnu,--sort-common,--as-needed"

In particular, --as-needed makes a HUGE very practical difference.  It 
may or may not be the wrong answer to the problem in theory, but lacking 
anything even close to as workable right now, that alone is IMO reason 
enough to work to get LDFLAGS honored.  I appreciate the difference it 
made here every time I run revdep-rebuild!

That's what makes observation of LDFLAGS very practically critical to me.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

[Nikos Chantziaras]

Duncan wrote:
> Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@arcor.de> posted g6dp32$1sl$1@ger.gmane.org,
> excerpted below, on  Sat, 26 Jul 2008 02:54:07 +0300:
> 
>> Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
>>> Le jeudi 24 juillet 2008 à 18:36 +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar
>>> Arahesis a écrit :
>>>> I would like to suggest new policy stating that packages should
>>>> respect LDFLAGS.
> 
>>>> This policy is required to allow QA team to fix packages which ignore
>>>> LDFLAGS.
>>>>
>>> this question might sound stupid, but what are you actually trying to
>>> fix ? What do these packages do or do not do by ignoring your ldflags
>>> that is so crucial to you ?
>> "-Wl,-O1,--hash-style=gnu,--sort-common,--as-needed"
> 
> In particular, --as-needed makes a HUGE very practical difference.  It 
> may or may not be the wrong answer to the problem in theory, but lacking 
> anything even close to as workable right now, that alone is IMO reason 
> enough to work to get LDFLAGS honored.  I appreciate the difference it 
> made here every time I run revdep-rebuild!
> 
> That's what makes observation of LDFLAGS very practically critical to me.

Fortunately, the majority of ebuilds/packages are honoring LDFLAGS.  Of 
course it's kinda difficult to always check if a package honors it or 
not.  But it's a good idea to file a bug for every package that does not 
honor it (without a reason).

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 743 bytes --]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 00:15:03 +0000 (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote:
> In particular, --as-needed makes a HUGE very practical difference.
> It may or may not be the wrong answer to the problem in theory, but
> lacking anything even close to as workable right now, that alone is
> IMO reason enough to work to get LDFLAGS honored.  I appreciate the
> difference it made here every time I run revdep-rebuild!

Ignoring CFLAGS on some archs results in code that is either an order
of magnitude slower or just plain won't run. Ignoring LDFLAGS means on
those rare occasions when libraries aren't slotted properly you have to
rebuild a few more things.

Rather a large difference in impact there...


-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

[Mart Raudsepp]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1199 bytes --]

On L, 2008-07-26 at 03:39 +0300, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> Fortunately, the majority of ebuilds/packages are honoring LDFLAGS.  Of 
> course it's kinda difficult to always check if a package honors it or 
> not.  But it's a good idea to file a bug for every package that does not 
> honor it (without a reason).

I guess as many are using it to pass --hash-style=gnu in addition to
other things[1], an easy way to find out which don't honor it out of
your installed packages is to scan for ELF files that contain the .hash
ELF section in addition to .gnu.hash ELF section.

Something through
scanelf -q -k .hash <path>
outputting anything or not could be used to determine if the section
exists or not. I'm sure there are better ways.

This doesn't work for packages that don't ship ELF files, but ld works
on ELF files, so those that don't use ELF files shouldn't really care if
LDFLAGS is honored or not...

Maybe this gives some ideas to someone to write a proper QA script, or
point us all to an already existing almighty script or tool that does
just that.

-- 
Mart Raudsepp
Gentoo Developer
Mail: leio@gentoo.org
Weblog: http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/leio

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

[Ryan Hill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 746 bytes --]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:36:28 +0200
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <arfrever.fta@gmail.com> wrote:

> I would like to suggest new policy stating that packages should
> respect LDFLAGS. Small amount of packages which ignore LDFLAGS should
> be patched to respect them. Such patches are usually small and easy
> to write.
> 
> This policy is required to allow QA team to fix packages which ignore
> LDFLAGS.

Um, this already is the policy.  We've always fixed bug reports about
LDFLAGS being ignored.


-- 
gcc-porting,                                      by design, by neglect
treecleaner,                              for a fact or just for effect
wxwidgets @ gentoo     EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

[Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 855 bytes --]

2008-07-26 18:06:12 Ryan Hill napisał(a):
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:36:28 +0200
> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <arfrever.fta@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > I would like to suggest new policy stating that packages should
> > respect LDFLAGS. Small amount of packages which ignore LDFLAGS should
> > be patched to respect them. Such patches are usually small and easy
> > to write.
> > 
> > This policy is required to allow QA team to fix packages which ignore
> > LDFLAGS.
> 
> Um, this already is the policy.  We've always fixed bug reports about
> LDFLAGS being ignored.

Mark Loeser (Halcy0n) (QA project leader) said on 2008-07-24 that this policy
doesn't exist. I understand that bug reports about LDFLAGS being ignored are
usually fixed, so I ask for the formal enacting of this policy.

-- 
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

[Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1106 bytes --]

2008-07-26 02:45:57 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 00:15:03 +0000 (UTC)
> Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote:
> > In particular, --as-needed makes a HUGE very practical difference.
> > It may or may not be the wrong answer to the problem in theory, but
> > lacking anything even close to as workable right now, that alone is
> > IMO reason enough to work to get LDFLAGS honored.  I appreciate the
> > difference it made here every time I run revdep-rebuild!
> 
> Ignoring CFLAGS on some archs results in code that is either an order
> of magnitude slower or just plain won't run. Ignoring LDFLAGS means on
> those rare occasions when libraries aren't slotted properly you have to
> rebuild a few more things.
> 
> Rather a large difference in impact there...

Respecting LDFLAGS provides also some some degree of optimization.
Potential benefits of LDFLAGS are sufficient to fix packages which ignore
LDFLAGS. The difference in impact is irrelevant, because even bugs without
any impact can be filed and should be fixed.

-- 
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

[Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 713 bytes --]

2008-07-26 01:07:42 Gilles Dartiguelongue napisał(a):
> Le jeudi 24 juillet 2008 à 18:36 +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar
> Arahesis a écrit :
> > I would like to suggest new policy stating that packages should respect LDFLAGS.
> > Small amount of packages which ignore LDFLAGS should be patched to respect them.
> > Such patches are usually small and easy to write.
> > 
> > This policy is required to allow QA team to fix packages which ignore LDFLAGS.
> > 
> 
> this question might sound stupid, but what are you actually trying to
> fix ?

I'm trying to fix lack of policy about respecting LDFLAGS. I'm also trying to
improve QA level in Gentoo.

-- 
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1611 bytes --]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 18:54:20 +0200
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <arfrever.fta@gmail.com> wrote:
> Respecting LDFLAGS provides also some some degree of optimization.

It's a *very* small degree, and certainly nowhere near on the scale of
the difference made by CFLAGS on some archs.

If CFLAGS only made the kind of difference that it made on x86 on other
archs, packages ignoring CFLAGS wouldn't be considered a big deal. It's
only because ignoring CFLAGS results in either certain types of
performance-critical code being *a factor of ten* slower or binaries
that won't run that it matters.

(As to why you get that factor of ten: gcc on sparc builds v7 code
unless you tell it not to. v7 has no hardware integer multiply or
divide, and doing it manually takes something like twenty clock cycles.
v9 and later, which is what nearly everyone uses, has hardware integer
multiply and divide, and can have several scheduled at the same time.
For crypto, this matters a hell of a lot.)

(And the breakage? Some archs need to be told to use IEEE floating
point via a -m CFLAG, or they'll generate code using the wrong ABI.)

> Potential benefits of LDFLAGS are sufficient to fix packages which
> ignore LDFLAGS. The difference in impact is irrelevant, because even
> bugs without any impact can be filed and should be fixed.

Of all the things people could be doing, making packages honour LDFLAGS
is an extremely minor issue at best. Whilst there's nothing wrong with
making the changes, it's not exactly the most productive use of limited
resources...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 501 bytes --]

On 18:37 Sat 26 Jul     , Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> Mark Loeser (Halcy0n) (QA project leader) said on 2008-07-24 that this policy
> doesn't exist. I understand that bug reports about LDFLAGS being ignored are
> usually fixed, so I ask for the formal enacting of this policy.

Why are you asking us? He's the QA lead, you should be talking with the 
QA team about this.

-- 
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

[Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 584 bytes --]

2008-07-26 21:35:08 Donnie Berkholz napisał(a):
> On 18:37 Sat 26 Jul     , Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > Mark Loeser (Halcy0n) (QA project leader) said on 2008-07-24 that this policy
> > doesn't exist. I understand that bug reports about LDFLAGS being ignored are
> > usually fixed, so I ask for the formal enacting of this policy.
> 
> Why are you asking us? He's the QA lead, you should be talking with the 
> QA team about this.

Halcy0n said that this policy required prior discussion on this mailing list.

-- 
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

[Ryan Hill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 591 bytes --]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 18:37:06 +0200
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <arfrever.fta@gmail.com> wrote:

> Mark Loeser (Halcy0n) (QA project leader) said on 2008-07-24 that
> this policy doesn't exist. I understand that bug reports about
> LDFLAGS being ignored are usually fixed, so I ask for the formal
> enacting of this policy.

Fair enough then. ;)


-- 
gcc-porting,                                      by design, by neglect
treecleaner,                              for a fact or just for effect
wxwidgets @ gentoo     EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

[Gilles Dartiguelongue]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1011 bytes --]

Le samedi 26 juillet 2008 à 21:39 +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar
Arahesis a écrit :
> 2008-07-26 21:35:08 Donnie Berkholz napisał(a):
> > On 18:37 Sat 26 Jul     , Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > > Mark Loeser (Halcy0n) (QA project leader) said on 2008-07-24 that this policy
> > > doesn't exist. I understand that bug reports about LDFLAGS being ignored are
> > > usually fixed, so I ask for the formal enacting of this policy.
> > 
> > Why are you asking us? He's the QA lead, you should be talking with the 
> > QA team about this.
> 
> Halcy0n said that this policy required prior discussion on this mailing list.
> 

like Ciaran said, fixing packages ignoring LDFLAGS isn't going to be top
priority because it is far less important than fixing packages ignoring
CFLAGS or doing pre-stripping. If making this a policy can make you
happy, I see no problem with that. It won't make bugs fix themselves
either way.

-- 
Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@gentoo.org>
Gentoo

[-- Attachment #2: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

[Carsten Lohrke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 234 bytes --]

On Samstag, 26. Juli 2008, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Why are you asking us? He's the QA lead, you should be talking with the
> QA team about this.

Such issues are not up to a self chosen group, but are topic for this list.


Carsten


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

[Carsten Lohrke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 714 bytes --]

On Samstag, 26. Juli 2008, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > Um, this already is the policy.  We've always fixed bug reports about
> > LDFLAGS being ignored.
>
> Mark Loeser (Halcy0n) (QA project leader) said on 2008-07-24 that this
> policy doesn't exist. I understand that bug reports about LDFLAGS being
> ignored are usually fixed, so I ask for the formal enacting of this policy.

Afaik it has always been the way that *sane* LDFLAGS are to be respected, but 
exceptions exist of course and it's up to the maintainer to mangle or clear 
your LDFLAGS, if deemed necessary. I'd like to know, why Mark asked to bring 
this question up here. Shouldn't this be common sense!?


Carsten

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

[Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1144 bytes --]

2008-07-26 23:43:53 Gilles Dartiguelongue napisał(a):
> Le samedi 26 juillet 2008 à 21:39 +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar
> Arahesis a écrit :
> > 2008-07-26 21:35:08 Donnie Berkholz napisał(a):
> > > On 18:37 Sat 26 Jul     , Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > > > Mark Loeser (Halcy0n) (QA project leader) said on 2008-07-24 that this policy
> > > > doesn't exist. I understand that bug reports about LDFLAGS being ignored are
> > > > usually fixed, so I ask for the formal enacting of this policy.
> > > 
> > > Why are you asking us? He's the QA lead, you should be talking with the 
> > > QA team about this.
> > 
> > Halcy0n said that this policy required prior discussion on this mailing list.
> > 
> 
> like Ciaran said, fixing packages ignoring LDFLAGS isn't going to be top
> priority

I never suggested that it should be top priority :).

> If making this a policy can make you happy, I see no problem with that.
> It won't make bugs fix themselves either way.

It will at least allow QA team to fix such bugs where patches are already
available.

-- 
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

[Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 825 bytes --]

2008-07-27 00:00:55 Carsten Lohrke napisał(a):
> On Samstag, 26. Juli 2008, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > > Um, this already is the policy.  We've always fixed bug reports about
> > > LDFLAGS being ignored.
> >
> > Mark Loeser (Halcy0n) (QA project leader) said on 2008-07-24 that this
> > policy doesn't exist. I understand that bug reports about LDFLAGS being
> > ignored are usually fixed, so I ask for the formal enacting of this policy.
> 
> Afaik it has always been the way that *sane* LDFLAGS are to be respected, but 
> exceptions exist of course and it's up to the maintainer to mangle or clear 
> your LDFLAGS, if deemed necessary. I'd like to know, why Mark asked to bring 
> this question up here. Shouldn't this be common sense!?

+1.

-- 
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1153 bytes --]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 00:00:55 +0200
Carsten Lohrke <carlo@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Afaik it has always been the way that *sane* LDFLAGS are to be
> respected, but exceptions exist of course and it's up to the
> maintainer to mangle or clear your LDFLAGS, if deemed necessary. I'd
> like to know, why Mark asked to bring this question up here.
> Shouldn't this be common sense!?

The way it is currently: Packages ignoring CFLAGS without a *very* good
reason (and 'upstream thinks they know better' is rarely a very good
reason, especially when upstream supposedly knowing better leads to v7
builds on v9 systems) need to be fixed. Packages ignoring LDFLAGS can
be fixed if the maintainer feels like it, but there's no requirement to
do so and filing bugs about it is frowned upon.

Until recently, LDFLAGS have been put in the "anyone using these is a
ricer" category. Unfortunately, the misguided promotion of 'as-needed'
despite its massive design flaws has lead people to think that setting
LDFLAGS is in some way useful or cool. I expect next someone will try
to find a way to force 'ASFLAGS' onto everyone...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

[Nikos Chantziaras]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 00:00:55 +0200
> Carsten Lohrke <carlo@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> Afaik it has always been the way that *sane* LDFLAGS are to be
>> respected, but exceptions exist of course and it's up to the
>> maintainer to mangle or clear your LDFLAGS, if deemed necessary. I'd
>> like to know, why Mark asked to bring this question up here.
>> Shouldn't this be common sense!?
> 
> The way it is currently: Packages ignoring CFLAGS without a *very* good
> reason (and 'upstream thinks they know better' is rarely a very good
> reason, especially when upstream supposedly knowing better leads to v7
> builds on v9 systems) need to be fixed. Packages ignoring LDFLAGS can
> be fixed if the maintainer feels like it, but there's no requirement to
> do so and filing bugs about it is frowned upon.
> 
> Until recently, LDFLAGS have been put in the "anyone using these is a
> ricer" category. Unfortunately, the misguided promotion of 'as-needed'
> despite its massive design flaws has lead people to think that setting
> LDFLAGS is in some way useful or cool. I expect next someone will try
> to find a way to force 'ASFLAGS' onto everyone...

This is totally irrelevant though.  If I have --as-needed in my LDFLAGS 
(I do) I still consider it a bug if a package does not honor it.  So 
what I'm doing is fixing the ebuild (*if* the ebuild does not mention a 
reason of not honoring LDFLAGS of course) and submit it in bugzilla.  I 
don't know if the maintainers are getting annoying by this.  They 
shouldn't.  If some LDFLAGS turn out to break a package in some way 
doesn't mean that it's OK for the package to ignore LDFLAGS altogether. 
  If I have CFLAGS="-O999999 -fsuper-mega-fast-math 
-enable-leet-broken-experimental-optimize" doesn't mean the package 
should ignore CFLAGS :P

(As for --as-needed, it's the same as -O3 in CFLAGS; if a package turns 
out to break, an ebuild *could* explicitly filter out -O3, but that's 
not really a priority.  In the end, if the user chooses ricer-flags and 
breaks his system, he can blame himself.  If he explicitly wants to 
shoot himself in the foot, the ebuild should allow him to do so.  Any 
effort spent to protect the ricers from themselves is *wasted* effort 
better spent somewhere else.

Not that I have ever seen a package that breaks with --as-needed though. 
  Of course that's just me.)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

[Gilles Dartiguelongue]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 417 bytes --]

Le dimanche 27 juillet 2008 à 02:12 +0300, Nikos Chantziaras a écrit :
> Not that I have ever seen a package that breaks with --as-needed though. 
>   Of course that's just me.)

ahah ! now I have an example for you, nemiver. It seems it does the
module loading thingy that was brought up in the relevant thread. It
breaks with --as-needed as expected.

-- 
Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@gentoo.org>
Gentoo

[-- Attachment #2: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

[Ryan Hill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 494 bytes --]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 02:12:13 +0300
Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@arcor.de> wrote:

> Not that I have ever seen a package that breaks with --as-needed
> though. Of course that's just me.

Well, then, behold:
http://tinyurl.com/5jvkm9

Now you have.  Enjoy. :)


-- 
gcc-porting,                                      by design, by neglect
treecleaner,                              for a fact or just for effect
wxwidgets @ gentoo     EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

[Nikos Chantziaras]

Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 02:12:13 +0300
> Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@arcor.de> wrote:
> 
>> Not that I have ever seen a package that breaks with --as-needed
>> though. Of course that's just me.
> 
> Well, then, behold:
> http://tinyurl.com/5jvkm9
> 
> Now you have.  Enjoy. :)

Then I must be lucky.  I actually don't use ricer-flags (I'm on "-O2 
-march=native -pipe" for CFLAGS.)  --as-needed is simply just too good 
for revdep-rebuild in order not to use it.  I figured that when actually 
something does break with it (nothing yet on my system) it would show 
immediately with a build or runtime error (good) rather than running 
with silent bugs (bad) and possibly corrupting things; build error or 
immediate crash.  I hope I'm not assuming too much here :P

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

[Jeremy Olexa]

Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> It will at least allow QA team to fix such bugs where patches are already
> available.

So, if bugs are being fixed why is there a need to fix something that 
isn't broken with regards to a policy _needed_ to enforce this action? 
Are bugs being ignored or RESOLVED, WONTFIX?

Hypothetically, if there was such a policy and there was 100's of bugs 
filed with patches (maintainers should handle the patches anyway) this 
isn't any different than the present lack of policy. Let us also pretend 
that there were 100's of bugs filed that had no such patches 
available..would the QA team have the manpower to generate patches to 
fix this and apply them or would the bugs just rot in bugzilla and not 
achieve anything?

-Jeremy

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

[Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1061 bytes --]

2008-07-26 02:56:24 Mart Raudsepp napisał(a):
> On L, 2008-07-26 at 03:39 +0300, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> > Fortunately, the majority of ebuilds/packages are honoring LDFLAGS.  Of 
> > course it's kinda difficult to always check if a package honors it or 
> > not.  But it's a good idea to file a bug for every package that does not 
> > honor it (without a reason).
> 
> I guess as many are using it to pass --hash-style=gnu in addition to
> other things[1], an easy way to find out which don't honor it out of
> your installed packages is to scan for ELF files that contain the .hash
> ELF section in addition to .gnu.hash ELF section.

The QA check which verifies that LDFLAGS are respected is now in Portage
trunk and will be released in 2.2_rc4. This check is enabled when LDFLAGS
contain "--hash-style=gnu" and "${PN}" != *-bin. Other binary packages
(e.g. net-www/netscape-flash) should set the QA_DT_HASH array/variable.

http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/portage?rev=11205&view=rev

-- 
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

[Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1148 bytes --]

2008-07-27 05:45:29 Jeremy Olexa napisał(a):
> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > It will at least allow QA team to fix such bugs where patches are already
> > available.
> 
> So, if bugs are being fixed

Not all of them.

> Are bugs being ignored or RESOLVED, WONTFIX?

These bugs which aren't fixed are usually ignored.

> Hypothetically, if there was such a policy and there was 100's of bugs 
> filed with patches (maintainers should handle the patches anyway) this 
> isn't any different than the present lack of policy. Let us also pretend 
> that there were 100's of bugs filed that had no such patches 
> available..would the QA team have the manpower to generate patches to 
> fix this and apply them or would the bugs just rot in bugzilla and not 
> achieve anything?

Such bugs usually get fixed.
https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=regexp&short_desc=%28ignore%7Crespect%29.*LDFLAGS&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&bug_status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED

-- 
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

[Marius Mauch]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 22:45:29 -0500
Jeremy Olexa <darkside@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > It will at least allow QA team to fix such bugs where patches are
> > already available.
> 
> So, if bugs are being fixed why is there a need to fix something that 
> isn't broken with regards to a policy _needed_ to enforce this
> action? Are bugs being ignored or RESOLVED, WONTFIX?
> 
> Hypothetically, if there was such a policy and there was 100's of
> bugs filed with patches (maintainers should handle the patches
> anyway)

"Should" being the keyword here. Also assumes that all packages are
actually maintained. I guess the wording of the original request should
have been more like "is anyone against QA fixing packages that ignore
LDFLAGS?".

Marius

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

[Nikos Chantziaras]

Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > [...]
> The QA check which verifies that LDFLAGS are respected is now in Portage
> trunk and will be released in 2.2_rc4.

Nice work.  Thank you :)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

[Mart Raudsepp]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1297 bytes --]

On P, 2008-07-27 at 18:20 +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
wrote:
> 2008-07-26 02:56:24 Mart Raudsepp napisał(a):
> > On L, 2008-07-26 at 03:39 +0300, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> > > Fortunately, the majority of ebuilds/packages are honoring LDFLAGS.  Of 
> > > course it's kinda difficult to always check if a package honors it or 
> > > not.  But it's a good idea to file a bug for every package that does not 
> > > honor it (without a reason).
> > 
> > I guess as many are using it to pass --hash-style=gnu in addition to
> > other things[1], an easy way to find out which don't honor it out of
> > your installed packages is to scan for ELF files that contain the .hash
> > ELF section in addition to .gnu.hash ELF section.
> 
> The QA check which verifies that LDFLAGS are respected is now in Portage
> trunk and will be released in 2.2_rc4. This check is enabled when LDFLAGS
> contain "--hash-style=gnu" and "${PN}" != *-bin. Other binary packages
> (e.g. net-www/netscape-flash) should set the QA_DT_HASH array/variable.
> 
> http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/portage?rev=11205&view=rev

You rock for actually putting this stuff to code!


-- 
Mart Raudsepp
Gentoo Developer
Mail: leio@gentoo.org
Weblog: http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/leio

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]